Irish child abuse

[KrazyHorse]

Your example sucks.

No, it doesn't. ****.

[Kuciwalker]

this is fun

[KrazyHorse]

I'll hold him, you hit him.

[KrazyHorse]

I hate surfer physicists who just like throwing around terminology without understanding what they're saying.

Reminds me of the time I was at an undergraduate conference. I was discussing GR with somebody, and we said the word "geodesic" a few times. In chimes this dumbass from the next table over "Geodesic? Yeah, I love earth science"

What a ****ing ****wit.

[Kuciwalker]

Even after we get through your problem of not having a ****ing metric, we have no guarantee that the distribution is Gaussian. The central limit theorem isn't some magic hammer that says "everything in nature is normally distributed".

edit: and if it were, your statement would then be useless

[KrazyHorse]

Not to mention the fact that the closest he came to defining a metric can only take on values between -1 and 1....BUT GAUSSIANS HAVE INFINITE SUPPORT

[Lorizael]

Very soon I'm going to change the autocensor so that **** returns frogger.

[KrazyHorse]

[KrazyHorse]

Hera's bordering on double frogger.

[Alinestra Covelia]

To the OP:

So, absolutely no legal repercussions whatsoever? It says there's no criminal charges possible, which makes me wonder if there's any way a civil suit could go forward.

I guess the victims could also try to get the Christian Brothers' case overruled or overturned by a higher court. (Christian Brothers of Canada were actually held liable for a $35M CND comp payment.)

The roughly comparable scandal in the US (which hit headlines in a big way in 2006) has resulted in multi-million-dollar settlement payments for compensation, as well as the defrocking and criminal trials and sentencing of several priests.

In Ireland, they get a strongly-worded anonymous report and some spokesperson handwringing. No wonder they're angry.

[Wezil]

To the OP:
(Christian Brothers of Canada were actually held liable for a $35M CND comp payment.)

They got off light.

Evil bastards.

[Jon Miller]

You have several years to go, right Hera?

JM

[KrazyHorse]

EDIT:
Ok I see how this could be misunderstood. I'll rephrase. I think that the person who would fall into the mean in such a study would probably be considered bisexual in our society. This is only a hunch though.

a) There's no rephrasing possible. You started blathering about Gaussians.

b) MEAN? WTF does that signify? YOU STILL NEED SOME SORT OF OBVIOUSLY VERIFIABLE METRIC. The physical placement of a distribution changes as you perform even a monotonic transformation of variables. The only thing which doesn't change under such a transform is the (physical) MEDIAN.

[KrazyHorse]

Way to edit an hours-old post, Hera. If you're going to do that at least make the edit something which doesn't add another ignorance strike against you.

[Heraclitus]

Some comment by him.

Actually I think it would probably be a bit skewed towards hetersexual since I assume evolution would reward it a bit more. But both the genetics and the environmental factors (BTW by environment I don't mean cultural influences) going into this are complex (otherwise studies would have determined the exact cause)


I think its well established that people have certain physiological cues for arousal. If this is not we should figure them out. If we tried and failed then I'm talking ****.


To properly gauge those you need a baseline for those readins for each individual (example: you need a base normal heartrate before you can speculate if someone's heartrate is heightened due to stimulation). Also we aren't really interested in varying degrees of asexuality here, as we aren't interested in how perhaps some people's cues for arousal are less noticeable.


To simplify I would take the maximum reading of the magical cue Z we have from the subject and divide all measurments of Z with it. Assigning those that where taken when the subject enjoed same sex stimuli +, those that where of a different sex - (we took lots of readings, example: if we are talking about visual stimulation we showed the subject many many pics of different men, women and objects that should evoke no sexual feelings). Suming the readings up and dividing them with the number of male or female readings we have gives us the number that lets us know in which interval this particular subject falls into.




BTW If Z max is too small to be above normal backround noise we disregard the readings from this person in further analysis. If there are too many people (significantly more than previous studies found to be asexual) in this category we need to rethink which cues we are measuring.